3 ms·
Nutjobs agreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong, but it's strong evidence they might be wrong. I mean, why are the nutjobs agreeing? That's worth think
by beat 8y ago
Nutjobs agreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong, but it's strong evidence they might be wrong. I mean, why are the nutjobs agreeing? That's worth thinking about.
This is especially important because clever politicians can say things that seem reasonable on the surface, but aren't really.
What I'm talking about here is really an application of the Pareto Principle, the 80/20 rule. Support of nutjobs is 80% likely to be evidence of nutty ideas.
- abnry 8y agoIf the reasoning skills of nutjobs are already suspect, you can't take as trustworthy their endorsements.
- sheepmullet 8y ago> Nutjobs agreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong, but it's strong evidence they might be wrong It doesn’t really work well for politics - it’s clear nutjobs support both major parties here in the US.
- a1369209993 8y agoThat's not a very convincing counterargument given that both parties seem to enthusiastically support things like corporate welfare, bogus patents, copyright and other censorship, warrentless surveilance and other domestic spying, private citizens being less well armed than goverment thugs, various horrendous dysfunctions of the health care system, and conditional welfare that cuts people off if they make any progress toward climbing out of poverty, and oppose things like nuclear power, basic income, common carriage requirements for ISPs and gigasites like facebook and google, and crackdowns on techinically-not-lying in contracts and advertisement.
- scottlocklin 8y agoFar right nutjobs (scarequote kind and real ones) have consistently been against US involvement in middle eastern wars. One of the ways the oligarchy works is associating things they don't like, aka "fewer dumb wars" with generally unpopular ideas.